Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 634 (GAU)

Sorenshangbam Mangijao Meitei v. Union of India

2010-08-23

ASHOK POTSANGBAM, MADAN B.LOKUR

body2010
JUDGMENT Madan B. Lokur, C.J. 1. Heard Mr. S. Sachindra, learned counsel for the petitioner and Ms. Ibohal, learned CGC. 2. The petitioner has filed this writ petition praying for compensation for the death of his son Sorenshangbam Sanayaima Meitei. 3. It is alleged in the writ petition that on 16.9.2008 at about 3.30 p.m. the petitioner's son was returning home with his friends from Sekmai and while they were waiting to catch a bus to Pukhao at the roadside of NH 39 near Gauhati High Court, Imphal Bench he was picked up by armed commando personnel of Manipur Police in plain clothes and taken in a Maruti car in the presence of his friends. 4. It is stated that the friends of the petitioner's son tried to intervene but to no avail. Later on it came to be known to the petitioner that his son was killed at Khongnang Pheidekpi area under Singjamei Police Station by the Manipur police commando personnel of Imphal West District, Manipur and 32 Assam Rifles on the midnight of the same day. 5. It is alleged that the petitioner's son had not committed any unlawful act and that he was illegally killed by the Manipur Police and, therefore, the petitioner is entitled to damages of Rs. 10 lakh for the unlawful killing of his son. 6. A perusal of the writ petition shows that the averments made by the petitioner are completely vague. There is absolutely no mention about the friends of his son who intervened nor is there any affidavit from any of them to suggest that they witnessed the incident of picking up of the deceased nor has any one of them made an averment that the petitioner's son was picked up by the Manipur Police. 7. The respondents have filed an affidavit in opposition. Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 have stated that the petitioner's son was killed during an encounter on the night of 16.9.2008. It is denied that the encounter was a fake encounter and it is stated that the son of the petitioner was shot during a retaliatory fire fight and even a weapon was recovered from the deceased after the encounter. 8. Respondent Nos. It is denied that the encounter was a fake encounter and it is stated that the son of the petitioner was shot during a retaliatory fire fight and even a weapon was recovered from the deceased after the encounter. 8. Respondent Nos. 3 to 5 have also filed an affidavit in opposition where they have stated that information was received on 16.9.2008 at about 10.30 p.m. that some members of an unlawful organisation, namely, Kangleipak Communist Party (KCP) were loitering in and around Kakwa Khongnang Pheidekpi. On receipt of this information, a combined team of Commando Unit, Imphal West District and personnel of 32 Assam Rifles rushed to the area and started checking. While this was going on, about 2 or 3 unknown youths were found loitering about in a suspicious manner. The search party asked them to stop for checking but they refused and instead started firing towards the security personnel. It is stated in the affidavit that the security personnel retaliated and an encounter took place for about 5 minutes, as a result of which some of the armed youths managed to escape. After the encounter was over, the spot was searched and one youth was found lying dead (later identified to be the petitioner's son) with a revolver and some rounds of live cartridges and one hand grenade, etc. It is contended that no fake encounter took place. 9. The petitioner has filed a rejoinder affidavit but apart from denying the averments made by the respondents, the petitioner has not added any new or specific facts to what is stated in the writ petition. The petitioner is still completely silent about the friends of his son who were witness to the alleged picking up of the petitioner's son from the bus stand. 10. All that is sought by learned counsel for the petitioner is that an enquiry be conducted by a District Judge or an authority not below the rank of District Judge and in that enquiry the petitioner will produce the necessary evidence. 12. In our opinion it is not permissible to direct a fishing and roving inquiry, especially by the District Judge. Since the writ petition is completely devoid of material particulars to lead to a definite suspicion, if not a conclusion that the incident as alleged by the petitioner occurred, we do not think it an appropriate case where this court should intervene. Since the writ petition is completely devoid of material particulars to lead to a definite suspicion, if not a conclusion that the incident as alleged by the petitioner occurred, we do not think it an appropriate case where this court should intervene. The affidavit in opposition filed on behalf of the respondents is quite specific and in spite of the fact that an opportunity was given to the petitioner to file a rejoinder affidavit, no further facts or details have been given apart from a bare allegation that the petitioner's son was unlawfully picked up and killed in a fake encounter. None of the persons who were with the petitioner's son have been mentioned. 13. Under the circumstances, keeping in mind the vague and general allegations made, we are not inclined to further continue with this writ petition. It is accordingly dismissed. Petition dismissed.